UCSF Study on Fetal Pain Revisited

The February 10, 2008 issue of the New York Times Magazine includes an article by Annie Murphy Paul that explores the subject of fetal pain and when the experience of pain begins for humans. Murphy Paul's article explores samples of divergent international research findings on the topic, including UCSF research from 2005. The UCSF study, published in the August 24, 2005, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, reviewed available literature on fetal pain and the use of fetal anesthesia and analgesia, and found that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester of pregnancy. The results were covered extensively by the media at the time and drew widespread attention from the scientific community. In response to letters published in JAMA, the UCSF researchers sent a reply letter to JAMA, which was published in the January 11, 2006 issue. This reply restated the research team's recommendations that fetal anesthesia/analgesia is indicated for fetal and neonatal surgery, because long-term fetal and neonatal well-being is the primary objective. In an effort to ensure that accurate information about this research is once again disseminated to the community and the general public, the original study and JAMA letter are now being re-posted. Related Links: Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
Susan J. Lee, Henry J. Peter Ralston, Eleanor A. Drey, John Colin Partridge, Mark A. Rosen
Journal of the American Medical Association
vol. 294, no. 8, August 24/31, 2005 Reply to Letter to the Editor on Fetal Pain (requires subscription)
Susan J. Lee, Henry J. Peter Ralston III, Eleanor A. Drey,
John Colin Partridge, Mark A. Rosen
Journal of the American Medical Association
vol. 295, no. 2, January 11, 2006 The First Ache
Anne Murphy Paul
New York Times
February 10, 2008